Why Obama’s Recent Attack on Free Speech is So Dangerous and Radical


Support for “speech vetting” or whatever it is eventually called will be bi-partisan.

Just watch.


13 responses to “Why Obama’s Recent Attack on Free Speech is So Dangerous and Radical

  1. “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.

    Basic truthiness tests? Sounds like something the graduate student gynocrats from Georgetown will devise. Will there be a micro-aggression meter?

    Lemme express myself:

  2. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on ETC., ETC., & ETC..

  3. I am armed; therefore, I say what I please.

    Trying to stop people saying what they please in this country, will be about as successful as attempting to disarming them. It will just be another big push toward Revolution.

    • outlawpatriot

      What’s your draw to first shot? And an effective hit?🙂


        OP: It’s not about drawing first. I do not rely on the mouse gun or snubbie in the RF pants pocket. Since I am a southpaw, my left hand is always on a razor-sharp, hollow-ground, small knife which I can readily deploy, engage, and then back up quickly. I carry a revolver because, God forbid, if I have to use deadly force and then Di-Di quickly, there are no shell casings laying about.
        In my experience as a Peace Officer, I can tell you when you least expect it, unpleasant things happen very fast. Situational awareness is everything. To this day, even as a geezer, I still practice in the quiet of my garage or man cave.

      • 200 words per minute. High level A zone snark.

  4. Remember McCain-Feingold, the last big attack on free speech?


    That was bi-partisan too. Also supported by all major news media that got a pass on having it enforced on themselves – “free speech for me, but not for thee” – so much for their commitment to the 1st Amendment…

    Apparently the act was eventually gutted by the Court. I guess it was a bridge too far.

  5. I’m betting #1 is radio broadcasting licenses revoked for stations which carry shows of hosts that promote denial of “climate change” based on CO2.
    Tell me we are not paralleling Nazi Germany already(i.e. imo looking at changing how media is distributed is no different than burning books).

  6. Support will be unipartisan: them vs. everyone else.
    The roster of “them” will mainly serve as a good ad hoc target list for future reprisals. NTTAWWT.

    Just thinking out loud, but one can but wonder if nooses left anonymously on door lintels might start driving the message home to certain people that mayhap they ought to start watching their language, and their step.

  7. In not so many words, “Go fuck yourselves mr. and mrs. government!”

  8. I’m sure I don’t like this female and will pay as little attention to her as possible.
    She is accused of starting a riot, when it looks like she is merely saying things that are inconvenient to the “lawful authorities”.

  9. Jimmy the Saint

    He said from day one that his goal was to fundamentally transform the country. Everyone always seems surprised when he goes about doing exactly that. As Costner’s character said in “Open Range”: “Most time, a man will tell you his bad intentions if you listen, let yourself hear.”